The guy with the controls in his hands and a locked cabin door behind him needs to be searched to see if he's carrying a weapon. Makes sense, right?
One could argue that searching -everyone- is a reasonable way to make sure a terrorist couldn't just buy an official looking uniform and fake some credentials to get through security. I'd probably respond with "We have yet to see terrorists that competent, the terrorists we have now are barely capable of detonating their own bombs," but that's an argument that could be made.
Another argument could be along the lines of we should all have to suffer the same stupid security measures or none of us should. If pilots, TSA agents, airline execs, legislators, and rich people are exempted from security theater, the rest of us commoners will have to put up with it too until the end of time since no one will change it. Granted, that's probably already mostly true.
But you're missing the point; if I were stealing, why would I volunteer to show them my bag and/or receipt?
Because if you're dumb enough to shoplift from Frys, you might be dumb enough to show your receipt and get caught.
More importantly though, you might just assume they could legally inspect your bags against your will and figure it's too much of a risk to shoplift from there in the first place. I'd guess they've done trials where one store had inspectors and one store didn't, and saw less loss at the inspected store without actually catching anyone. Signs advertising burglar alarms outside your home are supposedly more effective at preventing theft than actual alarm systems themselves, since only a very stupid burglar would still be in the house by the time anyone came in response to the alarm. Many would be burglars though wouldn't bother with it, since it's a hassle they don't need to put up with: there are plenty of houses with no alarm systems to worry about.
Charging me $5 for using my horn inside city limits would do little more than convince me that the government is, once again, butt-fucking retarded.
It would also likely convince you to only honk in situations where it's necessary. From the angry tone of your post, I have a hard time believing you honk only when there's imminent danger to you and not, say, you've already been cut off and you're just annoyed.
For that, yeah, I think you should have to pay $5.
So, you'd fine me for hitting my horn when someone is about to hit me/pull out in front of me/move into my lane and hit me/etc....? Do you know what the horn is there for?
I said it would be justified, yes. If there were a magical way to collect $5 every time someone honked without, say, requiring everyone to put a box in their car that reported the number of honks, or something like that, I would be for that. I can't think of a good way to do that without invading everyone's privacy with an inefficient system that would just be a waste of money.
If you're honking to avoid a collision, $5 isn't going to be a concern. If you're honking because you're angry or because you're too lazy to get out of your car and knock on the door, yeah, $5 is a small price to pay for annoying everyone in earshot.
Anyway, everyone knows that horns are there for those situations, but 90% of the time are used for non-emergency situations. I stopped short of suggesting they should be banned altogether.
So here we are on the verge of winning the war against noise pollution, and those motherfuckers WANT cars to be noisy?
Unless electric cars don't have horns, or don't have car alarms, we're nowhere close.
Speaking of, I would be in favor of legislation banning car alarms. A few cities have tossed around that idea before, but got shot down by the car alarm industry, if it were to gain traction at a national level, I'm guessing certain radio personalities and certain cable news networks would cast it as "Government bails out car thieves."
I'd also favor regulating horns. I think fining people $5 every time they honk within city limits would be justified, but I'd settle for limiting cabbies to three honks a month.
in his eyes its another way to get innocent police officers in trouble since a lot of the videos that have implicated officers in the past have lacked any context
Tell him he shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because some people are going to show videos out of context, to make good cops look bad, that doesn't justify being opposed to the whole thing.
It would be as bad as if I said that since some cops are corrupt, some cops are violent thugs, and some cops are racist, we ought to do away with all law enforcement.
and you don't get to play Darth Vader and "alter the deal, pray I don't alter it any further" down the road.
Why not? Are we going to pretend the US government is too moral to do such things, or that telecoms don't deserve that treatment?
If you don't like your ISP's business practices, find a new one. If there isn't another, and you think there's like-minded folks out there, find yourself some investors, and build your own ISP. It's actually somewhat trivial to do.
It is now clear to me that they are ALL a bunch of lying hypocrites
While all candidates at the national level have their own interests above everyone else's, you still need to choose the ones that have your interests second rather than someone else's interests second.
In Obama's case, I feel like he fits that description. Either way, he partially sold the internet to the highest bidder in order to avoid a fight and hang onto power, but to his credit, we did get -something- wheras under Bush et al, I think telecoms would have gotten all they wanted right off the bat.
That's the best you can hope to do in an election: keep out the ones who would screw you over the most.
The message? Graphic violence is OK and normal and natural. Sex is obscene, uncommon, not a part of normal adult life, and must not be shown for any reason. Anybody else think maybe we have this backwards?
Breaking news: Oracle has made an offer to purchase Sun Microsystems. Will it be approved by regulators? Stay tuned!
Well shit. I have a short memory and am too lazy to google it, but now I'm extremely curious as to whether or not it was. Fortunately, I won't be wondering for very long (short memory and all.)
It also adds TrueCrypt support, a Rainbow Shell that offers support for extended attributes, selective sync, a new installation wizard, and reduces resource usage (Awesome! But what does it do?)."
I don't know how you could be confused, it's all very straightforward.
You got some seashells or snail shells that are dull and lacking color? Rainbow shell takes care of that. You click a box, and a team of painters is alerted to paint any and all shells you have in your house.
Selective sync is a sync that is just very picky.
The new installation wizard was trained at hogwarts to install household appliances. He doesn't use magic to do it, but he gets to your house using magic, so you don't have to wait around all day. You have to pay him in gold galleons, but they hope to fix that in 1.1.
Resource reduction is simple: They shut off your electricity and water.
TrueCrypt support? If you happen to find yourself in a crypt, and that crypt isn't fake, they support you emotionally.
a single paragraph could have done the same for those of us that resist clicky-clicky on long-winded promotional multi-media (especially when a single paragraph would have done the job...)
Ah, but how do you know it's long-winded or promotional, or redundant with a single paragraph, until you click on it?!?
Come to think of it, how do you know it's multimedia? Maybe there's no text or sound in it! I guess if that were true, it would probably be even less clickworthy.
And yet Bush did whatever the fuck he wanted to the environment, constitution, world, even though no one with half a brain wanted it. Obama, on the other hand, gave up on the tax cut issue without trying.
I may be naive, but I think the voters could have been been educated to realize that tax cuts for millionaires would be bad for everyone else. Matter of fact, I think the millionaires themselves could have realized that saving a little money now would hurt them in the long run too. I didn't expect him to, say, raise taxes for the wealthy, but not even trying? Terrible.
Let's see. Does the name Alan Turing [wikipedia.org] ring a bell? The same guy who saved more lives in WW2 than anyone else by cracking the german cypher codes was also forced to take female hormones to chemically castrate him to avoid going to jail for being gay (1952).
The military owes a lot to the gays and lesbians, both civilian and military, who put up with the intolerance and ignorance to serve their country. The military is also the single biggest spender on technology. Any change in military hiring and staffing of this nature is relevant.
I think this falls under the "news that matter" business, but that's kind of a weak claim there. A gay guy who worked with technology, and the military buying technology does not make this about technology.
Last I checked, the US's interests in the region were pretty much entirely that they would use their weapons of mass destruction, so yes, threatening to use nukes if America meddles is pretty counterproductive and insane. We don't seem to be doing much with Burma. One of the main differences there is that Burma seems less likely to nuke someone.
Sure, that wasn't always the case, I don't trust US foreign interests either, and I live here, but screaming and waving a gun at a much better armed individual is in general not a good way to make sure you don't get shot.
And the Democrats also want to screw you over, so I'm not seeing a really great shift in my level of screwed here.
Well, in the summary there was this "We all knew this was coming after the last election removed most of the vocal supporters of net neutrality and supplanted them with pro-corporate Republicans." At least some of those vocal supporters were democrats, specifically Rick Boucher, "Chair of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, widely recognized as one of the most tech-savvy and intelligent members of Congress, and long an advocate for consumers on a wide variety of communications and intellectual property issues"
I mean, sure, no one ever got modded down on slashdot for cynicism on slashdot, and rather than feeling dumb for not paying attention, you get that nice warm and fuzzy feeling of elitism when you just assume there's absolutely no difference between the two parties and no reason to care one way or the other, but in this particular case I'm really not seeing it. There was a corporate sponsored rage this election cycle which several republicans rode into power, and it will have real consequences. It hasn't even started yet and we're already seeing it.
Some democrats might want to screw you over, but their real danger is that even those that DO want to support the little guy, they're utterly and totally incapable of doing anything about it.
What the FUCK is wrong with congressional republicans?!?
WHAT THE FUCK!?!?
Say what you will about the two party system, corporate masters, spineless democrats, that's all well and good and right, and fuck democrats too. But I see ONE party that lead the way on two pointless wars, one party that's saying "no we can't possibly end those wars before the other side all dies, because that would be surrendering and we don't do that", one party saying "Global warming might be a problem one day, sure, but lets let other people deal with that and not ask anyone to sacrifice today," one party saying "deficits don't matter, cut taxes without spending!" one party saying "only rich people should be have health insurance" one party saying "only poor people should pay taxes" and now one party saying "Corporations SHOULD control what you watch on the internet."
That would be the republicans, the democrats are just utterly incapable of doing much of anything when they're not actively supporting those issues.
And finally what is wrong with Americans that they don't care about any of that?
Seriously, it was no BSG, but other than Caprica, what exactly does SyFy have going for it now?
A radical bitchin' hip name! SYFY! Makes my faux-hawk stand on end just saying it! Or maybe that's just all this mountain dew I'm chugging! It's like, Halo meets extreme sports!
(Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm mocking, haven't watched it since it was "scifi", and the only person I know who drinks mountain dew is a professor.)
Slashdot Mirror
Then those people should organize professional sports teams and stop pretending that it has anything to do with edcational institutions they run.
I can only assume you're starting an educational institution which will never have a sports team of any type.
The guy with the controls in his hands and a locked cabin door behind him needs to be searched to see if he's carrying a weapon. Makes sense, right?
One could argue that searching -everyone- is a reasonable way to make sure a terrorist couldn't just buy an official looking uniform and fake some credentials to get through security. I'd probably respond with "We have yet to see terrorists that competent, the terrorists we have now are barely capable of detonating their own bombs," but that's an argument that could be made.
Another argument could be along the lines of we should all have to suffer the same stupid security measures or none of us should. If pilots, TSA agents, airline execs, legislators, and rich people are exempted from security theater, the rest of us commoners will have to put up with it too until the end of time since no one will change it. Granted, that's probably already mostly true.
But you're missing the point; if I were stealing, why would I volunteer to show them my bag and/or receipt?
Because if you're dumb enough to shoplift from Frys, you might be dumb enough to show your receipt and get caught.
More importantly though, you might just assume they could legally inspect your bags against your will and figure it's too much of a risk to shoplift from there in the first place. I'd guess they've done trials where one store had inspectors and one store didn't, and saw less loss at the inspected store without actually catching anyone. Signs advertising burglar alarms outside your home are supposedly more effective at preventing theft than actual alarm systems themselves, since only a very stupid burglar would still be in the house by the time anyone came in response to the alarm. Many would be burglars though wouldn't bother with it, since it's a hassle they don't need to put up with: there are plenty of houses with no alarm systems to worry about.
Charging me $5 for using my horn inside city limits would do little more than convince me that the government is, once again, butt-fucking retarded.
It would also likely convince you to only honk in situations where it's necessary. From the angry tone of your post, I have a hard time believing you honk only when there's imminent danger to you and not, say, you've already been cut off and you're just annoyed.
For that, yeah, I think you should have to pay $5.
So, you'd fine me for hitting my horn when someone is about to hit me/pull out in front of me/move into my lane and hit me/etc....? Do you know what the horn is there for?
I said it would be justified, yes. If there were a magical way to collect $5 every time someone honked without, say, requiring everyone to put a box in their car that reported the number of honks, or something like that, I would be for that. I can't think of a good way to do that without invading everyone's privacy with an inefficient system that would just be a waste of money.
If you're honking to avoid a collision, $5 isn't going to be a concern. If you're honking because you're angry or because you're too lazy to get out of your car and knock on the door, yeah, $5 is a small price to pay for annoying everyone in earshot.
Anyway, everyone knows that horns are there for those situations, but 90% of the time are used for non-emergency situations. I stopped short of suggesting they should be banned altogether.
So here we are on the verge of winning the war against noise pollution, and those motherfuckers WANT cars to be noisy?
Unless electric cars don't have horns, or don't have car alarms, we're nowhere close.
Speaking of, I would be in favor of legislation banning car alarms. A few cities have tossed around that idea before, but got shot down by the car alarm industry, if it were to gain traction at a national level, I'm guessing certain radio personalities and certain cable news networks would cast it as "Government bails out car thieves."
I'd also favor regulating horns. I think fining people $5 every time they honk within city limits would be justified, but I'd settle for limiting cabbies to three honks a month.
in his eyes its another way to get innocent police officers in trouble since a lot of the videos that have implicated officers in the past have lacked any context
Tell him he shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because some people are going to show videos out of context, to make good cops look bad, that doesn't justify being opposed to the whole thing.
It would be as bad as if I said that since some cops are corrupt, some cops are violent thugs, and some cops are racist, we ought to do away with all law enforcement.
and you don't get to play Darth Vader and "alter the deal, pray I don't alter it any further" down the road.
Why not? Are we going to pretend the US government is too moral to do such things, or that telecoms don't deserve that treatment?
If you don't like your ISP's business practices, find a new one. If there isn't another, and you think there's like-minded folks out there, find yourself some investors, and build your own ISP. It's actually somewhat trivial to do.
Alright, now you're just being obtuse.
It is now clear to me that they are ALL a bunch of lying hypocrites
While all candidates at the national level have their own interests above everyone else's, you still need to choose the ones that have your interests second rather than someone else's interests second.
In Obama's case, I feel like he fits that description. Either way, he partially sold the internet to the highest bidder in order to avoid a fight and hang onto power, but to his credit, we did get -something- wheras under Bush et al, I think telecoms would have gotten all they wanted right off the bat.
That's the best you can hope to do in an election: keep out the ones who would screw you over the most.
The message? Graphic violence is OK and normal and natural. Sex is obscene, uncommon, not a part of normal adult life, and must not be shown for any reason. Anybody else think maybe we have this backwards?
Sadly, no.
I'm for regulation of the lisps. It's fine if people want to misspronounce their "S"s, but people... thay it, don't thpray it.
No seriously, I got sprayed by someone with a lisp yesterday. It was very gross.
Breaking news: Oracle has made an offer to purchase Sun Microsystems. Will it be approved by regulators? Stay tuned!
Well shit. I have a short memory and am too lazy to google it, but now I'm extremely curious as to whether or not it was. Fortunately, I won't be wondering for very long (short memory and all.)
It also adds TrueCrypt support, a Rainbow Shell that offers support for extended attributes, selective sync, a new installation wizard, and reduces resource usage (Awesome! But what does it do?)."
I don't know how you could be confused, it's all very straightforward.
You got some seashells or snail shells that are dull and lacking color? Rainbow shell takes care of that. You click a box, and a team of painters is alerted to paint any and all shells you have in your house.
Selective sync is a sync that is just very picky.
The new installation wizard was trained at hogwarts to install household appliances. He doesn't use magic to do it, but he gets to your house using magic, so you don't have to wait around all day. You have to pay him in gold galleons, but they hope to fix that in 1.1.
Resource reduction is simple: They shut off your electricity and water.
TrueCrypt support? If you happen to find yourself in a crypt, and that crypt isn't fake, they support you emotionally.
So, you can use the free version, but if you do, make sure you don't store anything of value because it might go "poof" without notice.
I too read the fine print in TOS, which is why I don't use itunes. If I want to build nuclear weapons using my mp3 library, who is apple to tell me I can't do that?
a single paragraph could have done the same for those of us that resist clicky-clicky on long-winded promotional multi-media (especially when a single paragraph would have done the job...)
Ah, but how do you know it's long-winded or promotional, or redundant with a single paragraph, until you click on it?!?
Come to think of it, how do you know it's multimedia? Maybe there's no text or sound in it! I guess if that were true, it would probably be even less clickworthy.
That wasn't meant to be dismissive of his accomplishment, but you know, feel free to get upset by it.
I avoided Opera for years mainly because they're nazi like adherence to standards
Of all the things to troll about, what drives a person to do it about browsers?
I'm just curious why people like it, and if it will ever make it beyond a niche product on the desktop.
Seems to run better for me usually than firefox, and the mouse gestures are different from what I'm used to in Opera.
If I wasn't already used to opera, I'd probably be using firefox or chrome, but I'm reluctant to switch because it feels foreign.
And yet Bush did whatever the fuck he wanted to the environment, constitution, world, even though no one with half a brain wanted it. Obama, on the other hand, gave up on the tax cut issue without trying.
I may be naive, but I think the voters could have been been educated to realize that tax cuts for millionaires would be bad for everyone else. Matter of fact, I think the millionaires themselves could have realized that saving a little money now would hurt them in the long run too. I didn't expect him to, say, raise taxes for the wealthy, but not even trying? Terrible.
Let's see. Does the name Alan Turing [wikipedia.org] ring a bell? The same guy who saved more lives in WW2 than anyone else by cracking the german cypher codes was also forced to take female hormones to chemically castrate him to avoid going to jail for being gay (1952).
The military owes a lot to the gays and lesbians, both civilian and military, who put up with the intolerance and ignorance to serve their country. The military is also the single biggest spender on technology. Any change in military hiring and staffing of this nature is relevant.
I think this falls under the "news that matter" business, but that's kind of a weak claim there. A gay guy who worked with technology, and the military buying technology does not make this about technology.
So... when do we get noscript for opera?
Last I checked, the US's interests in the region were pretty much entirely that they would use their weapons of mass destruction, so yes, threatening to use nukes if America meddles is pretty counterproductive and insane. We don't seem to be doing much with Burma. One of the main differences there is that Burma seems less likely to nuke someone.
Sure, that wasn't always the case, I don't trust US foreign interests either, and I live here, but screaming and waving a gun at a much better armed individual is in general not a good way to make sure you don't get shot.
And the Democrats also want to screw you over, so I'm not seeing a really great shift in my level of screwed here.
Well, in the summary there was this "We all knew this was coming after the last election removed most of the vocal supporters of net neutrality and supplanted them with pro-corporate Republicans." At least some of those vocal supporters were democrats, specifically Rick Boucher, "Chair of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, widely recognized as one of the most tech-savvy and intelligent members of Congress, and long an advocate for consumers on a wide variety of communications and intellectual property issues"
I mean, sure, no one ever got modded down on slashdot for cynicism on slashdot, and rather than feeling dumb for not paying attention, you get that nice warm and fuzzy feeling of elitism when you just assume there's absolutely no difference between the two parties and no reason to care one way or the other, but in this particular case I'm really not seeing it. There was a corporate sponsored rage this election cycle which several republicans rode into power, and it will have real consequences. It hasn't even started yet and we're already seeing it.
Some democrats might want to screw you over, but their real danger is that even those that DO want to support the little guy, they're utterly and totally incapable of doing anything about it.
What the FUCK is wrong with congressional republicans?!?
WHAT THE FUCK!?!?
Say what you will about the two party system, corporate masters, spineless democrats, that's all well and good and right, and fuck democrats too. But I see ONE party that lead the way on two pointless wars, one party that's saying "no we can't possibly end those wars before the other side all dies, because that would be surrendering and we don't do that", one party saying "Global warming might be a problem one day, sure, but lets let other people deal with that and not ask anyone to sacrifice today," one party saying "deficits don't matter, cut taxes without spending!" one party saying "only rich people should be have health insurance" one party saying "only poor people should pay taxes" and now one party saying "Corporations SHOULD control what you watch on the internet."
That would be the republicans, the democrats are just utterly incapable of doing much of anything when they're not actively supporting those issues.
And finally what is wrong with Americans that they don't care about any of that?
Next election, I'm voting for myself.
Seriously, it was no BSG, but other than Caprica, what exactly does SyFy have going for it now?
A radical bitchin' hip name! SYFY! Makes my faux-hawk stand on end just saying it! Or maybe that's just all this mountain dew I'm chugging! It's like, Halo meets extreme sports!
(Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm mocking, haven't watched it since it was "scifi", and the only person I know who drinks mountain dew is a professor.)